Re: [s-d] [s-b] Consultation 105.

[0x44 <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jamie Dallaire wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 1:21 AM, Roger Hicks <pidgepot@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>   
>> On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 2:10 PM, Roger Hicks <pidgepot@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>     
>>> On Feb 13, 2008 12:19 PM, 0x44 <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>       
>>  >  > I submit the following Consultation:
>>  >  >
>>  >  > {{
>>  >  >     Does there exist a proposal numbered 355 as submitted by BobTHJ?
>>  >  >
>>  >  >     Reasoning:
>>  >  >        Per Rule 4e2 states that a game object may only be created in
>>  >  > accordance with the rules. Rule 4e15 establishes that Proposals are game
>>  >  > documents. Per 4e7, Submitting a Proposal is a Game Action. Also Per
>>  >  > 4e7, Game Actions must be posted to the Public Forum. The quasi-proposal
>>  >  > numbered 355 never reached the Public Forum, and therefore cannot be a
>>  >  > Proposal.
>>  >  >
>>  >  >     Unbeliever: BobTHJ
>>  >  > }}
>>  >
>>  >  This is Consultation # 117 (maybe). I assign it to Priest Antonio (maybe).
>>  >
>>  >  BobTHJ
>>  >
>>  As of Wed, 05 Mar 2008 00:00 this consultation was declared
>>  inconsistent. I re-assign it to Priest Billy Pilgrim.
>>     
>
> I Answer this Consultation YES, deferring to the Reasoning behind the
> Answer to a previous Consultation on the matter.
>   
If I could, I'd declare this CONSISTENT, just to get that period over 
and done with.


-- 
--
0x44;

_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss